Jump to content
DLDC_Sims_guy

Create, Import, and Use Building Models

Recommended Posts

Any chance of either an updated set of building models to better represent various regions? How about opening-up the process to REALLY create "mods" other than skins? Not talking about vehicles at this point, but only static items in the "objects" database.

Thanks,

Curt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difficulty with that is that they'd have to add a system to track the mods used in the scenarios, otherwise you could end up with a scenario that works differently with modded building X, but not the stock building X, which could be really bad in multiplayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I don't see that incompatibility being a problem but more of an inconvenience- if that interrupted play, the worst that could happen is that the scenario is broken, and they would have to play a different one.

It might have more to do with opening up proprietary code to the public against eSim's practices or something like that. It's not just that you plop down some structures and they appear in the game for visual purposes, they can have an effect on the way units behave (building floors can be occupied, for instance, fences wouldn't be completely opaque), and while I'm no coder, I would imagine many types of objects would require more than just a polygon, textured model, but parts of the objects defined to interact with the units (is the object translucent, can it be occupied, does it burn, does it damage light vehicles if they run into it? What can destroy it or under what circumstances can it be run over or bombed?)

On the other hand, maybe if some clever model builders could create a few objects, they could submit them to eSim to do all that work (if they had time), but then you would still probably only see them every 2 years or so with a new version, which probably undermines the desire of having new objects much sooner. In other words, it wouldn't be a system where you would see new content available for download and shared in quick order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we've spent almost twelve years now "fighting" in rural Australia in amongst distinctly European farm houses and to be frank it hasn't made any difference.

The underlying stuff is of key importance.

If they find time to make a corrugated iron shed that would be great but pretty sure its never been at the top of our user requirements list.

Would it look nicer, sure.

Does it help teach tactical lessons, no.

Is it more important to open that up and then divert limited eSim resources to do QA on what people submit, rather than have those same people work on more central issues, like Infantry modelling?

In my opinion no.

The last thing I need is student A thinking they are in cover behind a building when student B has some mod pack and the "building" appears to them to be a haystack or something, with a tank obviously sitting behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, maybe if some clever model builders could create a few objects, they could submit them to eSim to do all that work (if they had time), but then you would still probably only see them every 2 years or so with a new version, which probably undermines the desire of having new objects much sooner. In other words, it wouldn't be a system where you would see new content available for download and shared in quick order.

you might not have seen that this is current process.

3D artists are more than 3 years ago and almost all buildings have been updated, the process takes time, at the depend of new buildings introduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not seen any process, since I am not involved in it in any way. But I think the idea being proposed is that a larger community can have access to the code or submit environmental objects, and they will be in the download section pretty quick. That I know is not the current process. It's not enough to only create objects to populate the map, they have to have associated sound files, the other points I have mentioned. If it's happening as you say, then it's a few people creating the objects, and they are released with major updates, something you'd have to wait for anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I am currently using SB Pro (not PE) to create flyover videos of actual terrain. I use Google Earth for positioning of buildings, trees, and sundry other items to replicate actual areas here in the Midwest. It would be nice to have a larger geo-typical building database to work with, but it isn't a show-stopper. Was just wondering if we would be able to access the database and look-up procedures so we could add our own models to the mix. It would really open-up the flexibility and realism I could attain. I would compare it to the data found in VBS3, which allows me to create, import, and use 3D objects. Unfortunately, creating a map is a gruesome and evil bitch...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have not seen any process, since I am not involved in it in any way. But I think the idea being proposed is that a larger community can have access to the code or submit environmental objects, and they will be in the download section pretty quick. That I know is not the current process. It's not enough to only create objects to populate the map, they have to have associated sound files, the other points I have mentioned. If it's happening as you say, then it's a few people creating the objects, and they are released with major updates, something you'd have to wait for anyway.

Unless an object is made to be interactive, you really wouldn't need much at all by way of associated files. I'm looking more for ambiance and more variation of objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would really open-up the flexibility and realism I could attain. I would compare it to the data found in VBS3, which allows me to create, import, and use 3D objects.

Yes but that database is one of the key issues why "linking" VBS3 and Steel Beasts has become exponentially harder since VBS2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless an object is made to be interactive, you really wouldn't need much at all by way of associated files. I'm looking more for ambiance and more variation of objects.

Yes. But they have to work in game an NOT only look nice. :-p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes but that database is one of the key issues why "linking" VBS3 and Steel Beasts has become exponentially harder since VBS2.

Not necessarily, if a terrain database generator like TerraTools is being used. You get, of course, other issues with it. But terrain correlation is possible with it between both VBS versions and SB Pro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I am currently using SB Pro (not PE) to create flyover videos of actual terrain. ... It would be nice to have a larger geo-typical building database to work with, but it isn't a show-stopper.

If it is of any consolation, we're adding more buildings, and plan to put more emphasis on that. The problem is only partially one of artwork. If the buildings are to be used in actual simulation, meta data are becoming more and more important (like, what materials are used for the walls, how thick the walls are, whether there are internal walls to compartmentalize post-penetration effect, etc.)

We would rather like to nail down the specs for our future buildings first before opening the database for external models. Also, we do have an API to allow external tools to generate maps in the Steel Beasts format; TerraTools is an example of a software that can generate maps in SB Pro format with custom buildings (see the "Terrastan" map that is included in every Steel Beasts version; it contains a lot of custom buildings).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not necessarily, if a terrain database generator like TerraTools is being used. You get, of course, other issues with it. But terrain correlation is possible with it between both VBS versions and SB Pro.

Well all I know is that VBS2 and SB Pro 2.8X was painful to integrate.

VBS3 and SB Pro 2.8X was several more orders of magnitude of "painful" to integrate. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, what can I say. We made a few changes in the meantime to make the integration less painful, but of course that applies only to newer versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the SI unit for painfulness? ;-)

1. Saying Bohemia Interactive is $@$%^@$%^&@$^&@#^& several times.

2. Storming out and leaving it for a couple of days before trying with a fresh approach.

3. Goto line 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. But they have to work in game an NOT only look nice. :-p

Not sure what you mean by "work", as a static object with no movement or capabilities beyond blocking sight and movement are necessary. i don't even want "destructablity".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure what you mean by "work", as a static object with no movement or capabilities beyond blocking sight and movement are necessary. i don't even want "destructablity".

It certainly depends on the application case. If all that you want are some virtual helicopter flights, then "looking good" is all that is required, yes. If you want to wargame a combat scenario, you probably want to have internal walls to compartmentalize fragmentation damage from projectiles passing through the outer wall as a more realistic representation of the protection effect that buildings have.

Now, the problem is that digital content often develops a life of its own. We still carry around maps that were created for Steel Beasts 1, more than fifteen years ago, when we had no idea bout the scope that we would try to cover one day. Just like that, digital maps and scenarios, once created and left for others to use and to modify them, develop a life of their own. They mutate, but they certainly live longer than the original software version for which they were created.

So, what do you do once that the simulation develops new capabilities? Maintenance of the object library becomes an issue. You may notice that for version 3.0 we reworked the "dirty dozen" of the oldest and ugliest building models in SB Pro while maintaining their original shape and footprint for backwards compatibility reasons. This wasn't a mere facelift with prettier textures, the buildings were replaced with models that conformed to new standards to support coming features in SB Pro.

So, at least we as the developer have some responsibility to think about these issues in order to protect our customers' investment, the stock of maps and scenarios that they use for training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It certainly depends on the application case. If all that you want are some virtual helicopter flights, then "looking good" is all that is required, yes. If you want to wargame a combat scenario, you probably want to have internal walls to compartmentalize fragmentation damage from projectiles passing through the outer wall as a more realistic representation of the protection effect that buildings have.

Now, the problem is that digital content often develops a life of its own. We still carry around maps that were created for Steel Beasts 1, more than fifteen years ago, when we had no idea bout the scope that we would try to cover one day. Just like that, digital maps and scenarios, once created and left for others to use and to modify them, develop a life of their own. They mutate, but they certainly live longer than the original software version for which they were created.

So, what do you do once that the simulation develops new capabilities? Maintenance of the object library becomes an issue. You may notice that for version 3.0 we reworked the "dirty dozen" of the oldest and ugliest building models in SB Pro while maintaining their original shape and footprint for backwards compatibility reasons. This wasn't a mere facelift with prettier textures, the buildings were replaced with models that conformed to new standards to support coming features in SB Pro.

So, at least we as the developer have some responsibility to think about these issues in order to protect our customers' investment, the stock of maps and scenarios that they use for training.

We are in violent agreement. I wasn't complaining, just musing about what would be good to see. I DO appreciate the tents and other items you added in the most recent version! :luxhello:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a user of both, I try to keep comments here limited to Pro PE, otherwise it can cause confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×